From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112F03C3F5B for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 12:49:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790945378; cv=none; b=V1+NBKsje5ULDiGqiFLqH9qgzYRL3IZ3F2e4w/RVqJQFIiwneXLbmolwWkFq1qz1igshRVjQbHpSGFPiCfe1M78ILiT9BzuiWT/quqSHCFJdzGKie4vCrvGopQodfr+xFKOCrygUBfhGJzF4T1mbBGcNdGmh48ziCsU//hqLr5g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790945378; c=relaxed/simple; bh=R9ZL4VO8ZjqcAfvpK3iYINiO0VlxIT4/Ghqoy9d+KDQ=; h=From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=LEr5b0uqgXPq006S2bmHKYQ0q/imVn3Bgezm4VisNPRPDaepRM1dk1AEP1W4zs0ezny0kPwHyCp5/0h1u9qn6Srf0inDk0Kl2dByA8eojAOu55Z71PIh5zGcklmkONhDONxrFcNuZ4euuvphyZtp1NajII34rdoKqtFrVy05dJ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dJBKRCcO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="dJBKRCcO" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97A6C1F000FF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 12:49:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790945376; bh=Cp9MjHXLxrjTh2dhFb8kBZsTrYtIda2vPpVvma6hugk=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=dJBKRCcOE+nns75j+ShJ+4dItq7Z/O3CKPE9ghAYND948d1Ukpd5zYwmoP9SYHlP2 o60wBaY5XMLSOBcmvpExOWkKuZ41IO+uG0g9kcbbXnUy+r/Ih49XrFbuwcMS74+T2q KOVHcEvDeb16lguGAszbnspOn2dRhPn0W9d0rnwdHTfXdrhiK1FCdlpz1DDICJrVXP gyqWVAjwIFxOyk/eTn8OUROxqB/27Kt0a7rgfVbiGh+e3vIAYSvLgddkLvQ4LSo2vg I6Po8Qi+qoqOOT0Gz1mJjLba+umk202fhMYwgs9VPGGCw7Wvxz5+tdW2OCO5ZJYvyJ kt58uuphg9I5w== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] landlock: Wrap per-layer access masks in struct layer_config Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261002124409.1277970-3-mic@digikod.net> References: <20261002124409.1277970-1-mic@digikod.net> <20261002124409.1277970-3-mic@digikod.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 12:49:36 +0000 Message-Id: <20261002124936.97A6C1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > The domain layer FAM stores struct access_masks values directly, while a > ruleset stores the equivalent single mutable value. Per-category > permissions need additional per-layer data beyond the handled-access > bitfields. >=20 > Introduce struct layer_config as the common value type. Keeping the > handled bitfields in its .handled member leaves struct access_masks as a > lightweight parameter type for functions that only need those bitfields, > while the complete layer can be snapshotted with one assignment. >=20 > At this point struct layer_config only wraps the four-byte access_masks, > so it does not grow the per-domain allocation: the maximum 16-entry FAM > remains 64 bytes. >=20 > No functional change. >=20 > Cc: G=C3=BCnther Noack > Reviewed-by: G=C3=BCnther Noack > Reviewed-by: Tingmao Wang > Signed-off-by: Micka=C3=ABl Sala=C3=BCn Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261002124409.1277= 970-1-mic@digikod.net?part=3D2